DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006352332-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-20

000108309

Contested design: 006352332-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0063523320001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Wobben Properties GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Dreekamp 5, 26605 Aurich, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Tom Andresenvia PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Volta da Romanzeira Edificio Villa Nature, apt. 03C, 8125-407 Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal

Prior art cited (3)

PatentD1

tubular tower and construction procedure

WO 2010/055535 A1 · WIPO · disclosed 2010-05-20

PatentAnnex 2

Flanschsegment fur ein Windenergieanlagen-Stahlturmringsegment und Verfahren

DE 10 2017 106 201 A1 · Germany · disclosed 2018-09-27

Web disclosureAnnex 3

photos and video stills of modular wind turbine tower segments

Flickr and YouTube screenshots · Flickr; YouTube

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and also invoked visibility and technical-function objections against the wind-tower segment design.
  • The holder disputed disclosure of the earlier designs and argued the contested design was new, had individual character, remained visible in normal use, and was not dictated by technical function.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of WIPO-published D1, identified modular wind-turbine tower segments as the relevant sector, and found the designer's freedom limited by technical constraints.
  • Comparing the protected features, the Division held the contested design created the same overall impression as D1 and therefore lacked individual character under Article 6(1).
  • The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid in full, and the holder was ordered to bear the applicant's fixed costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit CESSY FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.01

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129804

vs Mirosław Mytnik StudioDelta.pl

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129781

vs SHANGHAI KENDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

2026-02-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000126955

vs Decora S.A.

2026-01-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129761

vs Shanghai Kenda Industrial Co.,Ltd.

2025-11-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000127177

vs Hermanus Johannes Matheus Verdegaal

2025-10-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129361

vs Xiaoxia LI

2025-10-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129266

vs Taiyuan Jiuchangsheng Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-10-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000124779

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258